Machine learning and deep learning predictive models for long-term prognosis in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Luke A Smith, Lauren Oakden-Rayner, Alix Bird, Minyan Zeng, Minh-Son To, Sutapa Mukherjee, Lyle J Palmer
Journal: The Lancet Digital Health (2023)

BackgroundMachine learning and deep learning models have been increasingly used to predict long-term disease progression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to summarise the performance of such prognostic models for COPD, compare their relative performances, and identify key research gaps.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the performance of machine learning and deep learning prognostic models and identify pathways for future research. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science from database inception to April 6, 2023, for studies in English using machine learning or deep learning to predict patient outcomes at least 6 months after initial clinical presentation in those with COPD. We included studies comprising human adults aged 18–90 years and allowed for any input modalities. We reported area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) with 95% CI for predictions of mortality, exacerbation, and decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). We reported the degree of interstudy heterogeneity using Cochran's Q test (significant heterogeneity was defined as p≤0·10 or I2>50%). Reporting quality was assessed using the TRIPOD checklist and a risk-of-bias assessment was done using the PROBAST checklist. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022323052).FindingsWe identified 3620 studies in the initial search. 18 studies were eligible, and, of these, 12 used conventional machine learning and six used deep learning models. Seven models analysed exacerbation risk, with only six reporting AUC and 95% CI on internal validation datasets (pooled AUC 0·77 [95% CI 0·69–0·85]) and there was significant heterogeneity (I2 97%, p<0·0001). 11 models analysed mortality risk, with only six reporting AUC and 95% CI on internal validation datasets (pooled AUC 0·77 [95% CI 0·74–0·80]) with significant degrees of heterogeneity (I2 60%, p=0·027). Two studies assessed decline in lung function and were unable to be pooled. Machine learning and deep learning models did not show significant improvement over pre-existing disease severity scores in predicting exacerbations (p=0·24). Three studies directly compared machine learning models against pre-existing severity scores for predicting mortality and pooled performance did not differ (p=0·57). Of the five studies that performed external validation, performance was worse than or equal to regression models. Incorrect handling of missing data, not reporting model uncertainty, and use of datasets that were too small relative to the number of predictive features included provided the largest risks of bias.InterpretationThere is limited evidence that conventional machine learning and deep learning prognostic models demonstrate superior performance to pre-existing disease severity scores. More rigorous adherence to reporting guidelines would reduce the risk of bias in future studies and aid study reproducibility.FundingNone.